Activision CEO: “We Might Have To Stop Supporting Sony”

Gears got special treatment by Microsoft because the game was published by Microsoft.

And of the Microsoft published games, it was judged the best title to focus on for the first X360 holiday season.

Regards,
SB

 

Maybe the definition does, but then you cloud the meaning of the word to the point of meaninglessness. Again, HAWX is not a rehash. It is new. End War is not a rehash. It is new. Rainbow Six Vegas is a reboot of sorts, that's not new. I mean, seriously, what's the point of commonality? That the world is minutes away from WW3? Ding Chavez?

 

Modern Warfare is a new IP. And you can't seriously suggest that just because it's prefixed by Tom Clancy something's not a new IP.

 

I would think that issues like;

Retail shelf space
Marketing cost
Support expenses

are also also playing into Activision's thinking. Also if the PS3 is going to be nothing more than another machine to have to port to, going forward it would be better to wish for its demise.

 

Only if the people who own one move to the 360. Otherwise you're dealing with a userbase 40% smaller.

 

I was referring to the next generation of consoles.

 

PC is a minor factor, because historically many hits on PC never make it big on consoles. More relevent to the discussion is that this recognition didn't help Wii sales, so we're still talking about a way to make money on 360/PS3 but not Wii (in case you forgot, that's the point of this line of discussion, not whether or not something is technically "new IP"). Finally, as Johnny_Physics mentioned, it was only the more innovative Modern Warfare game that really took COD to superstar status. And how can you call those two last gen games hits?

It doesn't matter. It's a third party studio that made new IP for HD consoles. They just got paid differently. If a third party studio created new IP for Wii, became a second party game after Nintendo picked it up, and wasn't included among the Wii games I mentioned earlier, please point it out to me.

What is that supposed to mean? All businesses make decisions based on expected value unless we're talking about individual projects that are so big that failure will cripple them.

Game studios don't care about how many titles satisfy the yes-or-no criteria that you set for what is called a hit. They care about total revenue.

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=219357

 

Meh, as much as I respect and like Bioware. I'll take their comments with regards to PS3 more seriously once they've started releasing simultaneously on PS3 and have first hand knowledge of the economics involved.

This isn't to say I necessarily disagree with his sentiments. But it's easy to play armchair quarterback when sitting on the sidelines looking in.

Regards,
SB

 

It is a deciding factor as to whether an IP is "new" or not. COD stopped being new after COD1. I think I am running out of ways to explain how previously existing IPs cannot by definition be "new." Becoming more popular doesn't make it new. Being on a different platform doesn't make it new. Being, y'know...new makes it new.

Again, I am running out of ways to explain that when a console manufacturer publishes your game, it is by definition not a "third party game."

Fatal Frame IV, while not new IP, was published by Nintendo, which makes it decidedly not third-party.

It's supposed to mean that "A lot of people who run companies are idiots; don't give them so much credit."

Besides, what are you trying to prove? Even if I agree to live in your bizarro world where the fourth Call of Duty is "new IP," and a game that MS bankrolled and published to promote its console is "third party," that's only two games, and the vast, vast majority of successful 360 games are still old IP.

 

You can't honestly say CoD - Modern Warfare was even remotely the same IP as CoD 1/2/3...

That would be like saying Crysis is the same game as Farcry.

I'll grant that Modern Warfare obviously tried to leverage the CoD installed fanbase, so to some degree your argument has merit. But other than being a FPS, they aren't even remotely similar.

Regards,
SB

 

People are arguing over the definition of IP here. fearsomepirate is saying it's any franchise, so Star Wars anything is the same StarWars IP. StarWars Battlefronts on PS2 was nothing new versus the original StarWars arcade game, and and Call of Duty game is still a Call of Duty game no matter what content it involves. Whereas you are taking IP to mean a particular branch of a game franchise, where Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance is a completely different IP to Baldur's Gate on the PC even though it shares the same IP.

Both are right in their own way, so there's no point arguing about it . In the scope of this discussion, I'd say a 'new game experience' is more what's meant by IP, so BGDA was a new IP as it was a hack'n'slash arcade game, versus the point'n'click RPG of the PC. The namesake of the IP will likely attract some existing fans of the franchise, but I think it's wrong to assume a large contigent. eg. I enjoyed the SW Battlefront games but not the KOTOR. The StarWars IP is not enough to sell a game to me. A person who enjoys a WWII shooter may not enjoy a contemporary shooter, even if it shares the same name. I would say the parent IP of COD is distinct from the child IP's of particular sub-game franchises, just like SW is the parent IP, wherein 'Battlefronts' is distinct from 'KOTOR' is distinct from 'The Force Unleashed'. Perhaps the relevant IP is the last name after any colons in the title? "COD : Modern Warfare" = "Modern Warfare" and not "Call of Duty"?

 

Yeah I'd agree with this here. As I said, I can see where his argument is coming from but from a game standpoint the game should distinguish whether it's a new IP or not.

The game world is rife with this. Is a Mario cart racer the same IP in game terms as Super Mario?

If a game goes off in a different direction whether for story/content/gameplay it should be considered a new IP, IMO in terms of gaming and possible consumers it may attract.

Although I can see fearsomepirate's point of view that you could consider different games as just expanding the boundaries of an IP, I just don't think that's relevant in this argument about whether games on the HD consoles/Wii are new IP or not.

As stated by many. Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X. is nothing like Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell is nothing like Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6, etc...

Super Mario is nothing like Mario kart racing.

Star Wars X-Wing is nothing like Star Wars Battlefront is nothing like Star Wars K.O.T.O.R.

Ah well. Different points of view for different people.

Regards,
SB

 

Just a small point: you're comparing games of the same universe in completely different genres. Both CoD1 and MW are FPS. They both have a strong linear story-driven SP and frenetic team based multiplayer. The same character is present in disguise in (nearly) all games. A more apt comparison would be asking if BF 1942, BF Vietnam, BF 2 and BF 2142 are the same IP.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but the argument you're making is not... intelectually honest, for lack of a better qualification.

 

While I'm not the one claiming that Call of Duty is all distinct 'IP', fearsomepirate did claim that Tom Clancy is a single 'IP', in the same way that Call of Duty is.

 

If the "COD" moniker was not existing IP that carried weight as far as potential future sales are concerned, why would the marketing department put it on the box? The average customer walking into EB to purchase a new game is going to see "Call Of Duty" and associate it with whatever other COD game they have played previously or seen ads / media for. Same goes for "Star Wars", "Lego", "Kirby", "Halo" or any other pre-existing IP.

Unless we are now going to say that Prototype is from the existing IP of Hulk Ultimate Destruction 2 it is pretty much irrelevant what the game mechanics are (I would go as far as to say that it is a specious argument). It is the mythos and branding that defines the IP. Is not "Star Wars" the movie from the same IP as "Star Wars" the Big Gulp cup or "Star Wars" the bed sheets?

IMHO of course.

Cheers

 

What?

It is silly. In fact, it's stupid. Activision has the most to lose being the front most publisher in the industry right now. Why would Activision burn bridges with Sony if Sony hasn't "failed" per se? Thier console is still alive, and Activision is still making a profit on it.

As we've seen this generation, anything can happen. What position would Activision be in if Sony managed to somehow turn the tables next generation with a new Console that lit up sales charts? There is certainly an equal amount of risk involved abandoning a platform entirely, as well as supporting it.

It was just a stupid thing to say, point blank. There is no experience necessary, or knowledge of economics. It's very basic and easy to grasp. It was stupid.

 

That's not what has prompted this whole side discussion though.

This originally started with regards to new IP for this console generation.

Meaning that some people were arguing that re-hashes of existing games would have sold more than new game types. Replace game types with IP for what some people were arguing.

So is Mario Kart a rehash of Super Mario?

Is Star Was KOTOR a rehash for Star Wars X-Wing Alliance?

Is Tom Clancy HAWX a rehash of Tom Clancy Rainbow 6?

Are those all technically the same Intellectual Property? Yes. Are they a rehash of existing game franchises as was the original debate that spawned this whole thing? Not even remotely.

And finally is COD - Modern Warfare a rehash of COD 1/2/3? There is absolutely no argument that COD - World at War is a quite obvious rehash of COD 1/2/3. But Modern Warfare?

BTW - I acknowledge what you're saying Richard. But, personally, I think there's a rather significant difference. A series can be defined by the pattern that it follows. The Battlefront series had a definite progression that steadily advanced the series. WWII followed by Vietnam followed by Modern day followed by Future.

COD series was established a WWII focused FPS based loosely around actual historical events.

Modern Warfare broke with that in many ways. First it broke with the WWII focus. And second it broke with trying to let the user experience historical events/battles. Instead it went slightly into the future, with your traditional "what if" fantasy scenarios. Additionally it tried to tell it's own coherent story through the entire game. Whereas the COD series up to that point was generally about 3 totally seperate and distinct events from historical battles.

COD - World at War (the true successor in the COD series) went back to the historical setting. With distinct and seperate story vignettes unrelated to each other except for the fact that they are set in WWII.

Perhaps I'm being too specific in my categorization. But COD 1/2/3/WAW are to me completely different from COD MW.

The closes analogy I can think of is comparing COD 1/2/3/WAW to the Star Trek Original series. While COD MW would be a completely new series in the Star Trek universe like Star Trek Voyager.

While something like Battlefront series would be similar to the Star Wars movie series. In that each movie is a progression along a distinct timeline.

Regards,
SB

 

Without being able to see their contractual agreements and profits noone other than Activision can say whether it's stupid or not.

When Activision ports a triple A title over to the PS3 are they required by Sony to produce X amount of boxed games? Are they then left with Y amount of unsold games sitting on the shelves?

For example for a projected blockbuster game, did they produce 1 million copies of the game, but then only sold 500k units? While the sales look good and the revenue look good. The profits, or this case loses, could certainly be devastating.

If PS3 consistently sells less than projected or less the number of copies they are required to produce, then they could be in fact making significantly less profit than what they are paying Sony for the priviledge of selling their game on the PS3.

They must pay Sony cash for each product either sold or produced. It's pure profit for Sony. Doesn't matter if X game sells 10 copies of millions of copies. For the publisher however. You MUST reach the break even point and then some for something to be profitable and not just profitable but worth the risk of sinking millions of dollars into a project. And that's not just dev costs if you want to claim that porting is cheap. You still have to pay duplication, licensing, etc...

And when coming up with the duplication costs you can't just calculate based of total units sold. You have to base it off total units produced which could be significantly more than units sold if the title undersold projections by a significant amounts.

[Edit] Let's use Skate 2 as an example. Last I saw sales on X360 were around 800k+ units while PS3 had 200k+ units sold in this US a few months ago. Lets assume they were expecting PS3 version to sell half as much as X360. Now lets say the produced 1 million units for X360 and 500k units for PS3. While X360 obviously paid for duplication costs and then some. The PS3 may not have even sold half the amount duplicated. Yet they still have to pay for all those unsold units.

And that's their main contention. They want Sony to reduce the price of the console in the hopes that it sells more thus allowing them a better chance to sell through the amount of pre-boxed titles they MUST produce whenever selling a game.

I'm sure most companies make the exact same demands of Sony in private. It's only Activision that's made it public in hopes of forcing Sony's hand.

And that's just ONE scenario where the PS3 might not be profitable for them, even when just porting a title.

As said, without being able to look at the actual profits made, number if copies they are required to produce, what costs are associated, etc. noone but Activision can say whether it's worth the investment.

And yes, I also acknowledge that all this could be a purely political move to bolster business negotiations with Sony. But again, without being privy to the important details...

You have to take what Activision says as what's best for them as a business, albeit with a grain of salt.

And you have to take what Sony says as what's best for them as a business, albeit with a grain of salt.

Noone get's a free pass from me.

Regards,
SB

 

So it doesn't matter at all that Modern Warfare practically has identical gameplay mechanics compared to other games in the series? Is the time period of the game's setting more important in defining the game than its gameplay?